Mendoza

Mendoza v. City Of Fresno

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 10, 20201:19-cv-01500California3,391 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JENNIFER MENDOZA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01500-DAD-EPG 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 12

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE

13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A

14 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., CLAIM, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE

COURT’S ORDER, AND FAILURE TO

15 Defendants. PROSECUTE 16 (ECF No. 8) 17

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

18 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS

19 20 Plaintiff, Jennifer Mendoza, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint, filed October 23, 2019, alleges that the 21 City of Fresno, Adam Estrada, Matthew Clifton, Scott Payn, Kenda Navarro, and Sharon 22 Takayama violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights when Defendant Adam Estrada entered her 23 home without her consent. (ECF No. 1.) 24 On February 11, 2020, the Court screened the Complaint and found that it fails to state a 25 cognizable claim against Defendants. (ECF No.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.